In Defense of the Gasoline-Powered Internal Combustion Engine
I would like to kick off this post with two breathtakingly broad generalizations. My first generalization is that we live in an amazing time, in which the human race has made miraculous leaps in the fields of information, communication, transportation, medicine, and entertainment--to say nothing of feeding and clothing ourselves. My second generalization is that we have a bad habit of taking these advances for granted.
This is by no means a new opinion--comedian Louis C.K., for one, has a real knack for pinpointing the absurdity in this. Here, for example, are his thoughts on air travel:
“I was on an airplane recently and there was high-speed Internet on the airplane. That’s the newest thing that I know exists. And I’m sitting on the plane, and they go ‘Open up your laptop and you can go on the Internet.’ and it’s fast, and I’m watching YouTube clips--it's amazing, I’m in an airplane! And then it breaks down, and they apologize. The guy next to me goes “Psshhhh. This is bull****.” Like how quickly the world owes him something he knew existed only ten seconds ago! ...
"Flying is the worst one because people people come back from flights, and they tell you their story. And it's like a horror story. It's--they act like their flight was like a cattle car in Germany in the '40s: that's how bad they make it sound. They're like "it was the worst day of my life ... first of all, we didn't board for twenty minutes, and then we get on the plane, and they made us sit there! On the runway! For forty minutes! We had to sit there." Oh, really? What happened next? Did you fly through the air incredibly, like a bird? Did you you partake in the miracle of human flight, you non-contributing zero? That you got to FLY?? YOU'RE FLYING! It's amazing! Everybody on every plane should just constantly be going, "OH MY GOD! WOW!" You're flying! You're sitting in a chair in the sky.
"But (the chair) doesn't--it doesn't go back a lot ... and the chair's really..." You know, here's the thing: people might say there's delays on flights. Delays? Really? New York to California in five hours. That used to take 30 years to do that. And a bunch of you would die on the way there and have a baby. You'd be a whole different group of people by the time you got there. Now you watch a movie and you take a dump and you're home.”
This is all funny because it's true; and I think it's especially true of modern cars and their motive force, the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine.
It's not a particularly fashionable time to write a pro-car treatise. Cars, their engines, and their fuel are blamed for a variety of sins--polluting the environment; distorting our foreign policy; requiring ugly and expensive roads; encouraging social deviancy; killing off drivers, pedestrians and wildlife; and hurting small business in small downtowns by encouraging sprawl. Here in Seattle, for example, a rather vocal portion of the populace has argued that we don't need to replace a major highway through the city despite our existing problems with congestion. The thought is that the resulting level of gridlock would serve an ostensibly worthwhile purpose of getting some cars off the road.
Here's the thing--a lot of those complaints have merit. Today's cars do have their downsides--particularly environmentally. After all, cars take a lot of energy and materials to build. To make them run you need a variety of toxic fluids, any of which can contaminate water and ground, and most of which need to be extracted from land situated in a politically volatile part of the world. Gasoline, the most central of these, adds a nasty pollution cocktail to the atmosphere when burned.
This all true, but I think it misses the larger point. Cars cause problems because there are just so many of them--their impact is multiplied by the sheer, staggering scale of their ubiquity. They are everywhere, and that's because they're fantastic at mobilizing us and giving us the freedom of movement. Today's car and its gasoline-powered internal combustion engine is essentially a miracle with some rough edges; and while we should acknowledge and work towards removing those rough edges, I want to take some time to recognize the miracle.
On its face, the internal combustion engine doesn't have much to recommend it. For one thing, it's not a particularly efficient way of turning energy into motion. It works from a series of controlled explosions, which generate force that translates into reciprocal motion and, eventually, the rotation of the drive wheels. This means that of all the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, only 25 percent turns into motive force. The remaining 75 percent of the energy turns into heat, light, and noise. This compares well to steam engines (roughly 8 percent efficient), but pales in comparison with electric motors, which are 75-95-percent efficient.
So, why am I defending the internal combustion engine? Because, despite this relative inefficiency, the gasoline-powered engine is an amazing machine. Let me explain by telling you what you already know--today's cars can do amazing things with a small amount of fuel.
Think of a one-gallon container of liquid--a typical milk container, for example. With only that much gasoline, depending on conditions and driving style, a brand new Honda Fit will drive 40 miles, possibly more, before it runs out of fuel. Please suspend your ennui for a moment; I'm going to do my best to persuade you that this truly is remarkable.
In absolute terms, 40 miles is a significant amount of distance. Think of the most common means of transportation before cars became common. Forty miles represents six hours of travel from a sailing ship traveling at a steady six knots. It represents five hours of travel from a horse trotting at a steady eight mph. It represents two days of travel from a cross-country wagon train. A late 19th-century train could cover 40 miles distance nearly as quickly as the Fit, but it would would need 1,000-4,000 pounds of coal to do so.
Let's take a look at the other side of the equation. The Fit is capable of covering those 40 miles on one gallon of fuel, within 40 minutes or less, without drama, and in comfort. The driver would be swaddled in an environment that includes a comfortably upholstered chair, a high-quality sound system with decent accoustics, and with filtered and climate-controlled air. And while we consider the Fit a relatively small and efficient car, it is capable of remarkable utility--it is a 2,500-pound car with a modern safety cage, seating for a family of five, and room for gear. It only takes eight fill-ups and 80 gallons of gas, costing the driver roughly $240, to propel this 2,500-pound object from one side of this continent to the other. That's an amazing accomplishment for a relatively small amount of fuel.
Bigger and faster cars are obviously less efficient, but it's a matter of degree. Most family cars are capable of 30 mpg on the freeway. Even a high-performance Chevrolet Corvette Z06, which cranks out more than 500 horsepower and is among the best-performing cars on Earth, can get more than 20 mpg on the freeway. If you're willing to trade utility and comfort for performance and economy, a motorcycle will take you even farther than the Fit, while allowing you to accelerate like a race car--with an engine displacing 1000cc or less, roughly the size of the water bottle pictured here. I think that's absolutely miraculous.
So, how is this possible? Well, for one thing, the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine is fundamentally a century-old technology in the same way that high-powered turboprop airplane is fundamentally a century-old technology. In both cases, the basic, primitive beginning has transformed into something much more sophisticated, thanks to billions of dollars of development, innovation from some extremely smart people, and a century of customer- and warfare-driven pressure to improve. New materials, variable valve timing, turbocharging, fuel injection, direct injection, computerized engine management, and other high-tech wizardry have turned the old internal combustion engine into a highly efficient source of power. Though, to be fair, these same forces likely would have driven some amazing strides in steam or electric cars as well, had either of those technologies emerged as the standard in the 1900s.
Boring old gasoline has also turned out to be a pretty fantastic fuel. It's easily transportable, burns relatively cleanly, and contains a lot of energy. This is one problem with a lot of the possible alternatives to gasoline--one gallon of gasoline is less expensive and contains more energy than liquid natural gas, liquid hydrogen, methanol, or ethanol. You get more bang (literally!) for your buck with gasoline.
To return to the clean-burning point for a moment; note that I said relatively clean burning. Burning any sort of fossil fuel will result in carbon and some nasty byproducts. But, compared to the bad old days, today's cars are amazingly clean (according to the EPA):
Car Pollution (grams/mile)
| Year | VOC | NOX | CO |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1967 | 16.8 | 3.2 | 81.7 |
| 1998 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 3.0 |
VOC-Volatile Organic Compounds; NOX-Oxides of Nitrogen; CO-Carbon Monoxide
That's a staggering drop in pollutants--and it explains why the skies over major American cities are cleaner than they were in the 1970s despite an increase in the number of cars. Another interesting fact from that study--the typical 1998 car would need to drive 660 miles to emit the same amount of VOC put out in just one hour by a chainsaw. This data is also a decade old; cars have become cleaner as technology improves. My 2003 Honda Accord, like many other cars, meets ULEV criteria, which means that it pollutes less than half as much as the average new car.
Please don't get me wrong here--I'm not saying gasoline-powered, internal-combustion-engined cars don't have serious flaws, that we shouldn't build more and smarter mass transit, or that we shouldn't make a serious effort to pursue alternative propulsion technologies. On the contrary, I think there's a lot of room to have smarter, faster, cleaner, and more efficient cars, and I'm looking forward to what tomorrow's technology brings.
The point here is that we should take a moment to give today's humble, much-maligned car a nod of respect and to recognize that whatever new propulsion model replaces the gasoline engine has some really big shoes to fill.
The top image is a Porsche Boxster engine cutaway; I found it at Serious Wheels. The smoggy picture of Beijing came from Eco Auto Ninja.com. The two bottles are Amazon images, the Honda Fit picture is a widely available Honda press photo, and the image of the gas nozzle comes from Cars Are Evil.com--I figured I should include a link to those guys as a counterpoint.
--Chris H.
Tomorrow--In Defense of Electric Cars
Friday--Anthony Cagle's look at the GM EV1
Chris Hafner on January 20, 2010 at 03:42 PM
For the purpose of fairness, I'd like to note that I wasn't able to locate the actual EPA study with the emissions numbers above - but I have found multiple academic references to those numbers. This might not meet journalistic rigor, but:
a) the percent decline in emissions is in line with information I've seen before in various sources
b) I'm being up front about it
c) I have a day job that I need to get back to
That Car Guy on January 20, 2010 at 05:08 PM
I think, for at least the next 20 years, further refinement of the gasoline engine is our only real option. Vehicles with the newest technology, cost controls, and environmental impact concerns don't offer anything better right now that I know of. Oh, and smaller, lighter cars on the landscape hopefully will help save fuel and control congestion in the near future as well.
I drove from St. Louis to Nashville today and saw only one obscenely large car (A mid-1980s Fleetwood Brougham), so at least most of those dinosaurs are dying off. There were still a lot of full-size pickups and SUVs with just one person in them, though.
Chris Hafner on January 20, 2010 at 05:10 PM
That Car Guy: "so at least most of those dinosaurs are dying off"
Of course, for some of the more mentally diseased of us on this blog, that's a bad thing.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on January 20, 2010 at 05:16 PM
I'd like to add a few minor points to your excellent essay:
1. In pre-automobile days, the primary means of freight transport in large cities was horse-drawn wagon, and draft horses were all too often treated as consumables, worked until they dropped and then left in the street. You think SUVs pollute? The tonnage of horse manure and dead animal carcasses that would need to be removed from the streets of as city the size of modern Seattle is just beyond modern comprehension.
2. For an illustration of just how much better automobiles have gotten within a human lifespan, consider two vehicles I've written "test drive" posts about in the past year:
1948 Frazer Manhattan -- 3.7L engine, 112 HP, 10 MPG in gentle urban driving
2009 Hyundai Accent -- 1.6 L engine, 110 HP, 30 MPG more or less in not-so-gentle urban driving
3. Automobiles allow individuals to travel where they want, when they want. That's personal liberty. Little wonder, then, that repressive governments restrict private automobile ownership. For an illustration of what I mean, fire up Google Earth and look at the traffic on Pyongyang's streets compared to, say, Seattle, which has roughly the same population.
Chris Mallow on January 20, 2010 at 05:26 PM
First, THANK YOU. I'm growing as tired of the trendy and endless ICE bashing as I am of the current coupe, sedan, and hatchback designs.
Second, I'm glad to hear someone say this. Our current technology is probably near the end of its useful life...but the end of its useful life is still probably 30 years away at a minimum. Electric is attractive, but its power capacity is just not ready for prime time (and recent studies suggest that cost-efficient battery technology is still at least 10 years away). Superconducting wires? Nope, not yet. Hydrogen fuel cells? Um.....no. Mr. Fusion? Are you kidding??
The key being, if we're seeing any other unintended consequences of the Internet and its one-innovation-per-minute pace, it's that we're no longer patient to fully develop other technology. It appears that lots of people somehow think the world will be ready next year to fully convert to the Chevy Volt, with no ill effects or noticeable loss of performance. (Hey, Google went from mere search engine to Ruler of the World in a mere 10 years, right? And I didn't even know what Facebook was two years ago, but today I run my life by it!) This attitude exists today more than ever in human history, and it is becoming a serious hindrance to intelligent, thoughtful technology development...especially when the laws of physics aren't as compliant with human desires as computer code. Development of the full technological package to replace the incredible advances in nearly every area over the past 100 years in the development of the modern ICE-based automobile is just not there yet...and we can't just snap our fingers to make it so. (We're NOT God, as much as we like to pretend we are.)
Chris Mallow on January 20, 2010 at 06:36 PM
OH, AND...
Chris H.: "Of course, for some of the more mentally diseased of us on this blog, that's a bad thing."
Amen, brother.
On the other hand, there will be some hotness to go with all that new-and-busted. I'm kinda looking forward to customizing the sound of my "engine," like they're saying you will on the new electrics (since electrics don't make loud noise like ICEs). Talk about your personal soundtrack...
That Car Guy on January 20, 2010 at 07:05 PM
Chris, I hope that the big cars are forever preserved in museums and car shows, but I just hope that we can decrease our need on foreign oil by getting as many of them out of daily service as possible.
Random Walker on January 20, 2010 at 09:42 PM
@ Cookie the Dog's Owner:
"Automobiles allow individuals to travel where they want, when they want. That's personal liberty. Little wonder, then, that repressive governments restrict private automobile ownership."
Exactly, bravo, amen!
Growing up behind the iron curtain we were always bombarded with state propaganda of how mass transit is superior and how cars are bad for environment (oh wait, that sort of sounds familiar, doesn't it? ehmmm never mind). What an environmental success has every state run economy turned into.
@ That Car Guy:
"... but I just hope that we can decrease our need on foreign oil ..."
How about you drill more of your own then?
Sean on January 21, 2010 at 05:17 AM
Thanks for defending the ICE it deserves more praise than condemnation. It has brought prosperity and freedom to the world that has never been seen in history. I’m sick of so called car guys trashing the car and whining about the myth of global warming. As far as electric cars, they are only as efficient as the coal fired power plant that feeds them and only as clean as the toxic batteries that go into them. Oil is cheap and plentiful and is within our own boarders for the drilling. Car guys should defend the ICE, its irresponsible not to. I’m looking forward to new technology and advancement in motive power and I hope its America that leads the way, but until that day, long live the ICE, the manual transmission and a screaming V8! Is doing burnouts in front of the EPA wrong?
Chris Hafner on January 21, 2010 at 08:00 AM
That Car Guy: "Chris, I hope that the big cars are forever preserved in museums and car shows, but I just hope that we can decrease our need on foreign oil by getting as many of them out of daily service as possible."
Yeah - I think the big dinosaurs are completely awesome, but I agree that moving them out of the daily driver pool is a good thing. Not just because they are much less efficient and pollute to a wildly greater degree, but because with more care and less wear and tear we can maybe preserve some more of them. I'm going to borrow from Rob's argument regarding vintage SUVs here - having 1970s barges on the road driving relatively rarely is A-OK - it's a drop in the bucket of the miles driven.
Chris Hafner on January 21, 2010 at 08:10 AM
Sean: "I’m sick of so called car guys trashing the car and whining about the myth of global warming."
Thanks for the kind words, but let's steer away from the global warming topic. It's a political issue, and the conversations on global warming tend to be even more dogmatic and heated (ha!) than other political conversations. Both sides bring out numbers, nobody agrees on what numbers are legitimate, and both sides leave thinking the other side is politically biased and not arguing in good faith. Calling it a myth is just begging for an argument, and while it's an important topic this just isn't the place for that conversation.
Besides, part of my point was that today's cars are massively cleaner than they used to be, which should be an uncontroversially good thing whether you're talking about greenhouse gases or pollutants. Hopefully before too long we'll have cars that are even better at this without sacrificing everything else we love about cars.
And isn't it amazing that a car traveling at 60 mph has to be operated for *11 hours* before it gives off as much VOC as a chainsaw operated for one hour? Given the relative amount of power and work done, I think that's remarkable. I think regardless of where you stand on global warming, we should be able to agree that that's a good thing.
Anthony Cagle on January 21, 2010 at 08:19 AM
Good article. When I wrote my (first!) article for CL on the Chrysler Turbine, it really gelled in my mind what a fantastic piece of technology the ICE is. It's a classic general purpose machine that does a lot of stuff well, even though other similar devices may be better in certain areas.
I'm betting batteries by themselves will *never* provide widespread transportation needs. I was really excited about hybrids, until they came out with the current crop of simple battery assist models. A true hybrid, with a small, very efficient engine powering a generator seems to me a very good compromise that isn't really a compromise because it uses petroleum (portable, high energy content) and electric motors (efficient, gobs of torque) to their best advantage.
I also tend to think hydrogen will eventually take over, but that's a ways away.
Steaming Pile on January 21, 2010 at 09:23 AM
@TCG - It is unfortunate that in the past couple of decades, those "dinosaurs" were more likely than not replaced with sport utility vehicles rather than small cars. I'm not saying the SUV has no place in our nation's fleet of vehicles, but merely that many of them are grossly underutilized, grossly oversized for their intended use, grossly inefficient mainly for the sake of being grossly inefficient, ugly as hell, etc., and so on and so forth. I would like very much not to start yet another flame war over SUVs, and we've heard all these arguments before, so let's just fast-forward past this argument without actually having it.
Then there are these mostly idiotic "crossover" vehicles, which serves most of the same purposes as a "blue dog Democrat," which is to be like an SUV (or a Republican) without actually calling it one. (This is not intended to be a political statement, just a simile. Don't flame me.) Among these are what is now being called a "touring" or "sport" hatchback. Honda just came out with a 5-door Accord. It weighs 4300 pounds, costs $35,000, and only comes with a V6 - how's that for efficiency?
In my younger days, the hatchback was the default form factor of a typical economy car, the kind that got 30 highway MPG (the manufacturer claimed 50, but who were they fooling?) when 30 MPG was considered really, really good mileage. The roads were full of them before gas got really cheap again in the mid to late 1980s. Now, when they're available at all, they're usually a premium priced product, with a few notable exceptions, the Honda Fit being among them. That's too bad.
And while I am still convinced that Cash For Clunkers did the nation a service by getting quite a few of the more inefficient, polluting, and probably unsafe cars off the road, not to mention keep a few dealerships afloat in a very difficult time, it would have been nice if Detroit had a larger selection of eligible replacement vehicles, so that Hyundai and Toyota wouldn't have soaked up the lion's share of that borrowed...er...tax money. Those that were available from the Detroit Three were either (1) rebadgineered captive imports, or (2) made in Mexico. Most just plain sucked. Here's hoping the bailout has its desired effect, and that the next generation of Detroit iron is of improved quality.
And in general, the day will come when electric motors replace the ICE, hopefully with as little economic pain as can be managed. The new Focus EV, should it ever see the light of day and not cost a frickin' fortune, would serve our needs well as a local car, while keeping the gasoline car around for longer trips. It's a shame we'd still need to do that, since we have no other means of getting from point A to point B that doesn't involve going through the very real pain in the ass that is air travel. We went to Germany this past October, and I got to ride the ICE train from Berlin to Stuttgart - pretty much from one corner of Germany to the opposite one. The trip took three hours at a top speed of around 180 miles per hour. At either end, there is an extensive network of light rail and bus transportation that will take you just about anywhere in either city - or any other city in Germany - you want to go. You can very easily do without a car, or relegate it to recreational use, with public transportation like you'd find in the EU, but we're light-years behind on that here. That's too bad.
That Car Guy on January 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Steaming Pile: I support your sentiments entirely, which is why I wrote "There were still a lot of full-size pickups and SUVs with just one person in them, though" in my comment.
The drive from St. Louis to Nashville is quite pleasant. I took I-55 South to Sykeston (sp?), then I-57 over to Charleston. From there, Hwy 60 to Wyckliffe, over what must be two of the most amazing, narrowest, hugest bridges of their type in the country, where the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers meet. I did this last summer in the Miata with the top down, and the thrill of meeting a wide semi on those tight lanes, while about 100 feet above the waters, must be experienced to be believed. I was in the Tribute yesterday.
Tom DeGisi on January 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Then there are these mostly idiotic "crossover" vehicles, which serves most of the same purposes as a "blue dog Democrat," which is to be like an SUV (or a Republican) without actually calling it one.
Not even close to mostly idiotic.
We didn't want an SUV. We didn't want a mini-van. We wanted a station wagon - one that would hold the five people in our family and a cello in the back. The Honda Fit won't do it - I brought the cello case just to check. The Kia Rondo, called a station wagon, but actually a crossover SUV, will. The foolish mileage regulations out of Washington killed the station wagon, a marvelously useful family vehicle, but one which has never got great gas mileage - and neither does our Rondo. It is much better than my parents Malibu, sure, but still not great.
Yours,
Tom
Chris Hafner on January 21, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Awesome - so we're up to three potential land mines in this comment thread - global warming, blue dog Democrats, and SUVs/crossovers.
Step lightly, folks!
David Colborne on January 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Tom: You nailed it. Crossovers would be stupid if it was actually possible to buy an affordable full-sized station wagon. It's not, so we get CUVs instead. Blame the Law of Unintended Consequences. That said, I do think that "crossover ute" is a rather obnoxiously "market-driven" name for something that is effectively a station wagon with an extra inch or two of ground clearance.
Chris: Excellent article! I have to be honest, I get rather annoyed by the "let's not expand this segment of our infrastructure so that people will use this other segment instead" crowd. Folks, when people decide they'd rather sit in a box for 2-3 hours in traffic rather than step into a mass transit system, that should tell you everything you need to know about what people think of your mass transit system. Either fix the mass transit system so people actually want to ride it or expand the highway infrastructure. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.
Don't get me wrong - mass transit has its uses. It's great if you're visiting a large city and need to get around. It's also fantastic if your home-work commute can be managed via mass transit (i.e. there's a stop nearby, the bus/train/whatever comes by the stop regularly, and there's a stop near your work). This isn't necessarily true for everyone, though, and pretending it is won't change anything.
Chaz on January 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I love your arguments on behalf of the old ICE.
I hear so many people saying 'we should be using something better'! I keep telling them 'Ok! What exists? What exists now that I can purchase for a reasonable price?' For all it's faults, it's gotten very very far.
It's also quite efficient. How many oats would it take to feed a horse so he can go 8 mph? How much manure do you have to scoop up along the way? Do you think a rickshaw is a humane way to treat another human being? How bout a coal or wood burning locomotive! I'm sure the EPA would love that!
You can ride to work on a bike! Wonderful! Try going from Alton, IL to Saint Louis, MO on your two wheels, in the snow with -10 wind chill, five days a week for two weeks, and tell me how that's like. Hell, try going any distance with those horrible weather conditions and tell me how that's like.
And don't get me started with public transit. I took a bus two weeks ago with 90 people stuffed into it like sardines, and two of them were sick. Fight epidemics! Drive in your own climate controlled vehicle and isolate yourself from possible infections! This message brought to you by the AHA!
I don't think my car is perfect, but it gets me from point a to point b right quick on my own schedule... and I get to pick point b.
Thomas Vago on January 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM
I do have one issue with your writeup. It is true that electric motors are anywhere between 75% and 95% efficient. However, they have to be powered... somehow. Take any electric generation utility we have now (coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc.), and try to power that motor with it (either directly or via some storage device), and at best you would get slightly more use out of whatever fuel was used to generate that electricity, than if an ICE were used to perform that work provided by the electric motor. Many people lose sight of this, when they see the "magical" high efficiency rating of an electric motor.
The ICE still beats anything else, hands-down, for economical personal transportation, and that is because hydrocarbons are the best way we know how to stockpile energy until it is needed.
Chris Hafner on January 21, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Well, sure - this wasn't really a post about the pros and cons of electric vehicles. That comes later today (schedule permitting).
George B on January 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Great article on the gasoline internal combustion engine. I would argue that automotive internal combustion engines, as good as they are, have the potential for even greater efficiency. I've read that there are 2 cycle diesel engines powering container ships that achieve greater than 50% efficiency. I would also argue that compressed natural gas is less expensive that gasoline, but it lacks the energy density advantage. Electric cars are chasing a moving target.
Regarding large vehicles with only one passenger, insurance costs and taxes distort car economics. One gets charged separately for insurance and taxes on both a small car and a truck at rates comparable to their fuel cost in the same time period. It makes economic sense to own one large does everything vehicle vs. a small car and a big truck as long as the fixed costs per vehicle are so high compared to fuel costs.
JFP on January 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Nice article. Thanks. Let me also point out that over the last century, the lives of lots of poor people have been transformed for the better by improving technology. In the mid-1950s, our washing machine only washed. It did not have a rinse or spin cycle, so my mother had to do that herself, for each item of clothing. Nor did we have a dryer. It took her all day to do the laundry. Now it takes me much less time, plus it's less labor-intensive.
Also at that time, there was little hope that one could travel to Europe and get back in a two-week span. One's entire vacation would be taken up just getting there and back on a ship. Now one can get there and back in a few hours on a jet. Sure, it's cramped, but so what?
As for mass transit and bikes, as a poor student I had to rely on these. (In retrospect, I should have bought a beater.) Someone has already pointed out how awful it is to ride a bike in the snow and cold. Also, what happens if mass transit workers go on strike? This happened my first year in college, and I had to beg for rides from richer people who had cars. Thanks, but no thanks.
Jeff on January 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM
One of the beautiful things about ICE's is that they will allow any future electric engine/battery breakthroughs to be quickly and easily intergrated into society. Car manufacturers will be able to pump out electric versions of their cars with little factory retooling required. They usually don't built engines in the same factory that builds the car, they just install the engine which could be electric as easily as ICE in the not too distant future. All of the advancements in materials, safety and comfort would not have been possible without the ICE.
The ICE gives us more freedom, certainly at a cost but then again Freedom isn't free.
steve travel on January 21, 2010 at 02:30 PM
Amen - try pushing that Honda Fit 40 miles - then you'll really appreciate the amount of power in one piddly gallon of gas. One can of pop will get you and your 2,500 lb car four miles - try that with a Mt Dew.
drew on January 21, 2010 at 02:49 PM
20 to 30% peak thermal efficiency is not a bad deal for the ICE.
That 90% efficient electric motor, well the fact is electricity comes from somewhere. Coal powered steam turbine plants (typical for US power) are often ~30% efficient.
A very modern natural gas fired, jet turbine with a second stage steam turbine can hit 60% thermal efficiency.
Diesels are 25 to 40% thermal efficient.
Large ship diesels can hit 50% thermal efficiencies.
Fuel cells are also only about 30-50% efficient. But they require pure hydrogen, which gets produced from processing coal or oil. Including that processing, the efficiency drops to about the same as everything else.